Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) NOTICE on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 4 has been accepted by learned Asst. Solicitor General of India. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21.12.2009, passed by opposite party no. 4, by which revision has been rejected. No explanation has been given in the writ petition for challenging the impugned order after delay of more than two years.
(3.) IT is well settled principle of law that 'delay defeats equity'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in : (2009) 2 SCC 479, S.S. Balu and another vs. State of Kerala and others has held that now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches. The relevant para 17 of the decision is being quoted as under: 17. It is also well settled principle of law that 'delay defeats equity.' The Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party respondents . It is now a trite law that there the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In NDMC v. Pan Singh this Court held (SCC p.283 para 16).;